### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Marc h 17 , 200 6 S es sio n JO HN J AY HOOK ER v. B ETT YE L. NIXO N, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 04C-2737 D onald P . Harris, Judge

No. M2005- 01383-COA-R 3-CV - F iled March 29, 2006

Plaintiff filed this action t o ch all eng e the c onstitut ionality of the Charter provision of the Metropolitan Government of Na shville Davidson County , Tenne ssee that imposes term limi ts on certain el ec t ed o ff

ices. The defe ndants filed a motion to dismiss contending the plaintiff did not have sta nding to maintain the a ction beca use he ha d not sustained a private injury distinct from other vo te rs . T he tr ia l c ou rt

a g re e d a nddis mis se d th e c omp la int . F ind ing no e rr or , w e a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the op ini on of

the c ou rt

. J ohn J ay Hooker , Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.
K ar l F

. D e a n , D i r e c t o r

o f L a w ; L o r a

B ark e n b u s F o x , J

. B r o o k s F o x a n d J o h n L

. K e n n e d y, Depa rtment of L aw of

the Metropo l i t an Government of Na shville and Davidson County , for the app e lle e , B e tty e L . N ixon, e t a l.
OP IN ION
Th e p la in ti f

f c h a ll e n g e s th e c o n s ti tu ti o n a li ty o f th e M e tr o Ch ar te r p r o v is io n th at imposes term limits on certain elec ted offices; howeve r, t he sol e is sue on appeal is whether the plaintiff has l ega l s t an d i n g.
Th e Charter provis ion a t is su e is 1 .0 7( a ). Th e plaint if f c on te nd s th a t he , a s a

vo te r, ha s a property rig ht to vote and that Metro C harte r provisi on 1.07(a) , which imposes term limits, int erf ere s with that property

rig ht, thereby

causing persona l injury

and harm to him. He contends the a lleg ed interfe renc e is impermissibl e base d upon the holding in Parks v. Ale xander , 608 S.W .2d 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).-2-

T h e t ri al co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e p l ai n t i ff ’s co m p l ai n tfo r l ac k o f s t an d i n g, h o l d i n g:
The mere status of a taxpay er or a voter is not enoug h for a plaintiff to show that he has standing to sue

. . . . The plaintiff’ s pleading s including his ame nded complaint a s w e ll a s h is s ta te me nts in o pe n c ou rt make it c lear th at th e plaint if f b ri ng s th is lawsuit due to his status as a voter; . . . Following the filing of a motion to alter or amend t h e o rd er of

dismiss al, the trial c ourt e nte re d a no the r o rd e r, ho ldi ng : [T] he mer e status of a

taxpay er or

voter is not enoug h for a

plaintiff to show that he ha s st a nd ing too su e
. . . th e plaint if f’ s p le a din g s, inc lud ing his Am e nd e d Co mpl a int , a s w e l l a s h i s s t a t e m e n t s i n o p e n C o u r t m ak e i t c l e ar t h a t t h e P l a i n t i ff br ing s th is la ws uit du e to h is s ta tus a s a

vo te r;
I t is therefor e ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DE CREED that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed Mar ch 16, 2 0 0 5 and his Motion to Alter and Amend do no t pr e se nt suf

fi c ie nt fa c ts to sup po rt the Pla int if f’ s ass e rt ion that he ha s sta nd ing in this matter to bring suit. . . .
The de fenda nts principally rely upon Mi y az awa v
. City of C inc inn ati , 45 F.3d 126 ( 6th Cir. 1995). I n Mi

y az awa the pla int if

f, a vo te r, fi le d a

de c laratory jud g me nt ac tio n to c ha lle ng e the c ity charter that plac ed term limi t s o n council member s. The trial c ourt held that the plaintiff la cked standing beca

use the thre at of injury was not r eal or immediate, but hypothetical and dismissed the co m p l ai n t

. M s
. M i y az aw a a p p ea l ed

. Un i t ed S t at es C i rc u i t C o u rt J u d ge S i l erau t h o re d a t h o ro u gh and we ll reasone d opinion for the Mi y az awa court. Relevant portions of t hat opi nion are repe ated below:
V o t e r s ' r i g h t s u n d e r t h e F i r s t a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s w e r e de fi ne d in An de rso n v . Ce le bre zze , 460 U.S. 780, 787, 103 S.C t. 1564, 1569, 75 L .Ed.2d 547 (1983), a s “‘the right of

individuals to associate for the adva nceme nt o f pol itical beliefs, and the right of qualified vote rs . . . to cast their vote s eff ectively .’” ( quoting W illiams v. Rhodes , 3 9 3 U

. S. 2 3 , 3 0

- 3 1 , 8 9 S. Ct

. 5 , 1 0 , 2 1 L

. E d

. 2 d 24 (1968))

. M iy a za w a is e n ti tl e d to th e s e r ig h ts , b u t s h e la c k s s tan d in g b e c a u s e th e th r eat of injury is neither re al nor immediate, but is hypothetical. As the pl aintiff, she bears the burde n of demonstra ting that the g overnme nt's reg ulation of another party cause s her to lose a constitutional right. Se e Luj an v . D e fe nd e rs o f W ild lif e , 504 U.S. 555, [562] , 112 S.Ct . 2130, 2137, 119 L .Ed.2d 351 (1992). When she is not the object of the governme nt a c tio n, sta nd ing is n ot i mpo ssi ble to p ro ve , “ bu t it is o rd ina ri ly ‘substantially

more diff icult’ to establish.” Id. ( q u o t i n g Allen v. W right , 468 U.S. 737, 758, 104 S.Ct

. 3315, 3328, 82 L .Ed.2d 556 (1984)) . She has not demonstrate d her standing here

. Cf

. J aim e s v . To le do Me tro

po lit an Ho us ing Au tho rit

y , 758 F.2d 1086, 1093 (6th Cir.1985). Given the r uling in Jaimes , Miy azawa' s contention t hat she ha s-3-

standing throug h t h e “capa ble of re petition, y et eva ding r eview” ripene ss doctrine,
se e So uth e rn Pa c ifi c Te rm ina l Co . v . I CC , 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.C t. 279, 283, 55 L .E d. 31 0 ( 19 11 ), is m e ri tle ss. Miy azawa c ontends that the ruling in Zie las ko v . S tat e of O hio , 873 F.2d 957 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 9 ), i s ap p l i ca b l e h er e. Ho we v er , we d i s agr ee
. I n t h at ca s e, J u d ge Z ie la s k o , w h o w a s mo r e th a n s e v e n ty y e ar s o f a g e , a n d M s
. B o w man , a v oter who su pp orte d h im, br ou g ht a n a c tio n chal leng ing the c on sti tut ion a lit y of a n O hio constitutional pr o v is io nprec luding the e lection or a ppointment of any

judicial office r over the ag e of seve nty . The state a rg ued that as Z ielasko had not take n any action to promote his candidac y

or to secur e his place on the ballot , neither he nor B owman ha d s ta nd ing . We fo un d th a t Z ie la sk o h a d s ta nd ing be c a us e ha d h e pe rs on a lly promoted his candida cy , this would have caused him to run the risk of a criminal penalty for “ elec tion falsification,” a s he would h av e had to sign a doc ument de c lari ng he wa s u nd e r s e ve nty y e ars of a g e . A c c or din g ly , the fe ar of so me c e rt a in leg al pena lty may constitute an ac tual harm or injury sufficie nt to save a c ase f rom dismiss al. B owman' s standing w as re cog nized through Z ielasko.
I n this case, no suc h harm c an be fo u n d

. M iy azawa ha s merely asserted a g ener al complaint that an unidentified candidate that she may want to vote for

may not be elig ible to run for tha t office . She has demonstra ted no close r elationship to, or any persona l stake in, the claim made. No one is g uara nteed the right to vote f or a spec ific individual. Zielasko , 873 F.2d at 961. Miy azawa ha s suffer ed no harm, nor wi ll s he su ff

e r an y g re a te r h arm

than th a t of

a ny oth e r v ote r i n th e City

of Cin c inn a ti, that would provide he r standing here in. Miy a zaw a

a sse rt s th a t othe r c a se s h a ve re c og nize d a vo te r' s st a nd ing to challeng e statutes under which potential candidates wer e denie d acc ess to the ballot and that this circuit should follow s uit. Howeve r, a r eview of these c ases r evea ls that the y are e a sil y

dis tin g uis ha

ble fr om that a t ba

r. F or e xamp le , w hil e the Sup rem e Court in Bullock v . Carter , 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.C t. 84 9 , 3 1 L .Ed.2d 92 (1972), all o wed a

suit byvoters to cha lleng e state ba llot acce ss require ments, the voters/plaintiffs we re pe rsons who we re se eking to become c andidates but we re barr ed therefr om under the subject statute. I n Erum v. Caye tano , 8 81 F .2 d 6 89 (9 th C i r
. 1 9 8 9 ) , a

v o t e r w a s a l l o w e d t o c h a l l e n g e a s t a t e b a l l o ta c c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t

. In Erum , th e pla int if

f/vo te r w a s a no n- pa

rt isa n ca nd idate wh o w a s se e kin g to b e c ome a c a nd idate bu t w a s b arr e d b y the app lic able statut e . [foo tno te omi tte d] F ina lly , in Hende rson v. Ft. W

orth Independe nt School District , 526 F.2d 286 (5th Cir.1976), c e rt . d e nie d, 44 1 U.S. 90 6, 99 S.Ct . 1 99 6, 60 L .E d. 2d37 5 ( 19 79 ), a vo te r w ish ing to support a particular potential c andidate w as fou n d t o h av e standing to challeng e a state statut e ba llo t r e qu ir e me nt.-4- Whil e the g ener al lang uag e of the opi n i o n s in these ca ses see ms to support Miy azawa' s position, a care ful revie w re veals that in eac h case , the plaintiff/voter ha d a persona l stake in the outcome of the elec tion ( i.e., the voter was a po t ential c a nd idate , a

su pp orte r o f the p ote nti a l c a nd idate , o r w a s u na ble to v ote fo r h is sp e c if ic c a ndid ate of

c ho ic e du e to the su bje c t la w) , u nli ke Miy a zaw a , w ho on ly a lle g e s that so me tim e in the fu tur e sh e ma y wa nt to vo te fo r a n u nid e nti fi e d c a nd idate who may not meet the re quirements of the subject leg islation. Cl early , Miy azawa does not have a sufficient persona l stake in the out come to possess standing to bring this action.
Mi y az awa , 45 F.3d at 126-128.
Th e pla int if

f b e fo re thi s c ou rt , li ke Ms. M iy a zaw a , h a s f a ile d to e sta

bli sh that he ha s a sufficie n t p er s onal stake in the outc ome. Moreove r, in that the fa cts and issue be fore us are substantially

simil ar to those in Mi

y az awa , and our r esolution of the issue p re s en ted is consistent with that in Mi

y az awa , we see no benef

it by expounding furthe r, other tha n to confirm that we aff irm the ruling of the trial c ourt. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed, and this matter is re manded with costs of a ppeal assessed a g ainst appellant, John J ay Hooker

.

___________________________________

WI LL I AM C. KOCH, J R., P.J ., M.S.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE